Disposed¶42

C.Esakkimuthu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2025WP(MD)/368/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Road widening Periyathalai (ECR Road) to Tisaiyanvillai, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District; mandamus to consider representation dated 06.11.2024; duty of statutory authority to consider representations; non-consideration as dereliction of duty; Article 226 Constitution of India; three-month timeline; W.P.(MD)No.368 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M.S.Ramesh; A.D.Maria Clete; disposed 09.01.2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶42

C.Esakkimuthu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed by writ of mandamus to widen the road starting from Periyathalai (ECR Road) to Tisaiyanvillai, Sathankulam Taluk and Thoothukudi District, within a time stipulated by the Court. +1 more

¶35

Ratio / Principle

A statutory authority has a duty to consider a representation made to it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders one way or the other, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely; non-consideration of the representation amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of the Court's extraordinary powers under Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time.

¶37

Key takeaways

The second respondent (Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Thoothukudi) is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶41
The Court expressly did not express any view on the merits of the road-widening demand; it remains open to the concerned respondents to consider the matter on its own merits.obiter¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Art. 226) by C.Esakkimuthu seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to widen the road from Periyathalai (ECR Road) to Tisaiyanvillai, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. His representation dated 06.11.2024 to the Highways authorities had not been considered. Held: whenever a representation of this nature is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders instead of keeping it pending indefinitely; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of Article 226. The second respondent (Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Thoothukudi) was directed to consider the representation dated 06.11.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressed no view on the merits. Petition disposed of; no order as to costs. Order by M.S.RAMESH, J., bench M.S.RAMESH and A.D.MARIA CLETE, JJ., dated 09.01.2025.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.368 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.368 of 2025

¶9

C.Esakkimuthu : Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Represented by the Principal Secretary of Government, Highways Department,

¶13

Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶14

2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department (Construction and Maintenance), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶15

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

¶16

Highways (Construction and Maintenance),

¶17

Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.368 of 2025

¶21

4.The Chairman,

¶22

Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. : Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to widen the road which starts from Periyathalai (ECR Road) to Tisaiyanvillai, Sathankulam Taluk and Thoothukudi District within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan

¶25

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar

Government Pleader

O R D E R

[ Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.]

¶30

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for

¶31

final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶32

2/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.368 of 2025

¶35

2. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to widen the road which starts from Periyathalai (ECR Road) to Tisaiyanvillai, Sathankulam Taluk and Thoothukudi District within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶36

3. The petitioner herein had given a representation to the official respondents on 06.11.2024, in this regard. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶37

4. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶38

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.368 of 2025

¶40

5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a

¶41

direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶42

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed

¶43

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

[M.S.R.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.]

¶45

09.01.2025

¶46

Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MR

¶47

4/6